3 PTS endorsed licence.RSA motability wont insure me..

[Aretnap]

I suspect that the problem is that driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence can mean anything from a missing L plate to driving with no licence at all. While one is quite a minor matter, the other is obviously a serious one. However insurers have no easy way of knowing the circumstances behind the conviction, so they just see the code and treat everyone with it in the same way. For some insurers this will mean not offering insurance at all.

 

I'm not quite sure why the court would have given you an absolute discharge and still endorsed your licence - often an absolute discharge goes hand in hand with special reasons not to endorse. But if that's what they decided to do then that's what they decided to do, and if you wanted to appeal you would normally have had to have done so within 21days of the sentence, so you have little chance of getting this reopened now. In any event while you can ask the court not to endorse your licence because of some strong mitigation relating to the offence itself, you can't ask them not to endorse because the endorsement would cause you hardship.

 

The fact that you got an absolute discharge raises the question of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Convictions become "spent" after a fixed period, and after that they do not need to be disclosed to insurance companies. When the conviction results in a fine it becomes spent after 5 years, which is why most insurance companies ask about convictions in the last 5 years. However when the "punishment" is an absolute discharge the conviction is spent in 6 months.

 

The points of course stay on your licence for 4 years, but does that mean the conviction does not become spent for 4 years? I think not. There is case law to say that a driving licence endorsement is not a "disability, prohibition or other penalty" within the meaning of the Act - it's just a warning that further offences will be dealt with more harshly - and therefore the conviction can become spent even though your licence is still endorsed. The case law dates from before the penalty point system was introduced in the days when you simply got an endorsement, and specifically related to drink driving. I don't know if there's been a definitive ruling on whether the same applies to points, but I would argue that it does, and therefore that your conviction should become spent 6 months after you received it.

 

Once the conviction is spent the insurer should not be refusing you insurance because of it, even if the endorsement is still on your licence. The Financial Ombudsman confirms this.

 

By way of analogy, there seems no reason why a rehabilitated drink-driver, if he had evidence, would not have an equally strong case if he was refused insurance or was given less favourable terms and conditions than other policyholders, simply because of his spent conviction. If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise, we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty. Similarly, if a firm cancels the policy of a customer who has a spent conviction (but whose licence is still endorsed), simply because the customer did not disclose the endorsement, then we will uphold the customer’s complaint.

So if it's been more than 6 months since you were convicted (not since the offence itself) I would suggest that you get back to the insurers, point out that the conviction is spent, and ask if they will insure you. If they won't you can try the Financial Ombudsman.